He must first raise a crop from the land, and then give a part of the crop to the landlord as rent; or he may sell the crop and give to the landlord, as rent, part of the money for which the crop is sold. We find, then, that the labourer cannot get food without working, and cannot work without land, and that, as he has no land, he must pay rent for the use of land owned by some other person--a landlord. We find that the labourer produces the whole of the crop, and that the landlord produces nothing; and we find that, when the crop is produced, some of it has to be given to the landlord. Thus it is clear that where one man owns land, and another man owns no land, the landless man is dependent upon the landed man for permission to work and to live, while the landed man is able to live without working. Let us go into this more fully. Here (Fig. 2) are two squares of land-- _a_ _b_ +----------+ +----------+ | | | | | *W | | | | | | | +----------+ | * * | | | | W W | | *W | | | | | | | +----------+ +----------+ Fig. 2 Each piece of land is owned and worked by two men. The field _a_ is divided into two equal parts, each part owned and worked by one man. The field _b_ is owned and worked by two men jointly. In the case of field _a_ each man has what he produces, and _all_ he produces. In the case of field _b_ each man takes half of _all_ that _both_ produce. These men in both cases are their own landlords. They own the land they use. But now suppose that field _b_ does not belong to two men, but to one man. The same piece of land will be there, but only one man will be working on it. The other does not work: he lives by charging rent. Therefore if the remaining labourer, now a _tenant_, is to live as well as he did when he was part owner, and pay the rent, he must work twice as hard as he did before. Take the field _a_ (Fig. 2). It is divided into two equal parts, and one man tills each half. Remove one man and compel the other to pay half the produce in rent, and you will find that the man who has become landlord now gets as much without working as he got when he tilled half the field, and that the man left as tenant now has to till the whole field for the same amount of produce as he got formerly for tilling half of it. We see, then, that the landlord is a useless and idle burden upon the worker, and that he takes a part of what the worker alone produces, and calls it rent. The defence set up for the landlord is (1) that he has a right to the land, and (2) that he spends his wealth for the public advantage. I shall show you in later chapters that both these statements are untrue.